Case Digest (G.R. No. 198756) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. V.Y. Domingo Jewellers, Inc., decided on March 25, 2019 under G.R. No. 221780, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice on September 9, 2009 against V.Y. Domingo Jewellers, Inc. for alleged deficiency income tax and value-added tax for 2006 amounting to ₱2,781,844.21. The respondent filed a request for re-evaluation/re-investigation and reconsideration on September 17, 2009 with the BIR’s Regional Director. After BIR issued Assessment Notices Nos. 32-06-IT-0242 and 32-06-VT-0243 dated November 18, 2010 and a Preliminary Collection Letter (PCL) on August 10, 2011 demanding payment, the respondent sought certified copies of the Assessment Notices on September 12, 2011, received them on September 15, 2011, and on September 16, 2011 filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Division under Section 7(1) of RA 1125 and Section 4, Rule 8 of the RRCTA, contending the Assessment Notices and PC Case Digest (G.R. No. 198756) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Pre-assessment and Initial Protest
- On September 9, 2009, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) against V.Y. Domingo Jewellers, Inc. (VYD) assessing ₱2,781,844.21 for 2006 income tax and VAT.
- On September 17, 2009, VYD filed a Request for Re-evaluation/Re-investigation and Reconsideration with the BIR Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 6.
- Assessment Notices, PCL and Petition for Review
- On November 18, 2010, the BIR issued Assessment Notices No. 32-06-IT-0242 (₱1,798,889.80) and No. 32-06-VT-0243 (₱1,365,727.63).
- On August 10, 2011, RDO No. 28 (Novaliches) sent VYD a Preliminary Collection Letter (PCL) demanding payment within ten days and threatening distraint/levy.
- On September 12, 2011, VYD requested certified copies of the assessment notices and received them on September 15.
- On September 16, 2011, VYD filed a Petition for Review with the CTA in Division under Sec. 7(1), RA 1125 and Sec. 4, Rule 8 RRCTA, praying for the cancellation of the assessments and PCL as barred by prescription.
- CTA First Division Proceedings
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing appealable is only the CIR’s decision on a disputed assessment.
- On January 29, 2014, the CTA First Division granted the CIR’s motion, dismissed VYD’s petition, and held the assessments final and beyond CTA jurisdiction.
- On April 23, 2014, the CTA First Division denied VYD’s motion for reconsideration.
- CTA En Banc Proceedings
- On May 30, 2014, VYD elevated the case to the CTA En Banc, contending denial of due process for not receiving a Formal Assessment Notice (FAN) and arguing jurisdictional grounds.
- On July 1, 2015, the CTA En Banc granted VYD’s petition, reversed the First Division Resolutions, and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the PCL sufficed as notice akin to a FAN.
- Supreme Court Review
- The CIR filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to reverse the CTA En Banc.
- The Supreme Court required VYD to comment; VYD argued CTA jurisdiction extended to “other matters” under the NIRC and that the PCL was a de facto denial of its protest.
Issues:
- Did the CTA in Division acquire jurisdiction to entertain VYD’s Petition for Review absent a decision of the CIR on a disputed assessment?
- Can a Preliminary Collection Letter be construed as a CIR “decision” on protest appealable to the CTA?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)